Abhik Sarkar wrote: > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Sake Blok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Have a look at bug 1723 which already has a patch to improve the >> parsing of text2pcap. The author of the patch has not responded to >> the latest comments of Richard though. Maybe we should take his work >> and polish it for him? >> >> (http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1723) >> >> Cheers, >> Sake > > Thanks for the pointer, Sake! I will have a look at it and see if it > fixes the issue I have and also if I can do anything to incorporate > Richard's comments into the patch (unless Jack is already working on > it but hasn't had the time to finishing the 'polishing').
Thanks Abhik. I suspect the guy that originally posted the patch lost the will to work on it any further after nothing happened for three months... If you could polish up his patch a bit more, that would be fabulous. On a side note (not /neccessarily/ something i expect you to do anything about, Abhik), it would be fabulous if text2pcap had some tests... just some sample input and expected output such that we can check there aren't any regressions as patches get applied. This is true of much of our code... there aren't enough tests for my liking. How do others feel about this? Cheers Richard _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
